Trump urges Americans to give up the Constitution for Security

So... Trump's latest attack on the Constitution: he wants to reinstate intimidation tactics that have already been ruled unconstitutional years ago.
He has already declared that he wants to eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment and the "due process" clause. Now this?

His policy plans will clearly require Constitutional Amendments to implement. What exactly are his plans to get these proposals through Congress and
ratified by the States? How stupid does he think the electorate really is?

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump thinks the best way to stop crime in black communities is to broaden the use of stop and frisk, a
policing tactic that has been proved to be discriminatory against blacks and Latinos.
...
Trump’s claim that “in New York City, it was so incredible the way it worked” isn’t quite accurate. The tactics used there have been broadly
condemned for disproportionately targeting blacks and Latinos while only incrementally reducing crime.
...
In 2013, a federal judge ruled the practice was being used unconstitutionally in New York, calling it a “policy of indirect racial
profiling” because the New York City Police Department disproportionately targeted black and Latino men during routine traffic stops. In her ruling,
Judge Shira Scheindlin wrote that stop and frisk was “a demeaning and humiliating experience” for communities of color.

“No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life,” she wrote.

Later that year, an investigation by the New York state attorney general found that only 3 percent of traffic stops “led to guilty pleas or
convictions at trial” and only 0.1 percent were for violent crimes.

The title states that he wants a 'stop and frisk' at an event for black voters. NOWHERE in the article does it state what event. If I missed it,
please let me know, but I read the whole article and it was basically general to stop the violence. What event just for black voters, or is this just
sensationalistic yellow journalism used by the now left-leaning Huff Post to get you to click on the article?

After this election we have to go collectively to a political party something like what is now the , take your pick, constitution party or green party
and start over. We have to NEVER EVER support a national level R or D. We have to vote them out at the polls or the freedom for all of us individuals
to do as we wish as long as no other is hurt, will die a slow death as witnessed now.

The only other options are not pretty and I have kids to protect. I want this done by upholding the laws even for the elite class. Some of them are
now obviously and lawlessly getting the benefit of major differences in standards.

So , I gather from your Post that you Favor the Rights of Criminals of not being Identified by Law Enforcement Officials over the Right of Law Biding
Citizens being Protected by the Law ? I see...........

People who are at the local level are fine. But let them go to DC and the scum take over. They compromise the young ones and they become victims of
their own greed which is held over the new congress critters like the "sword of Damocles". Trump is a symptom of this criminal class and may be just
fine but there are lots of clues like the OP to suggest we aren't getting a Plato or George Washington type with Trump. Still he isn't a Clinton,
case closed.

Hillary wants to "end the 1st and 2nd?" Last I checked all she was blathering about were expanded background checks? I have no love for her pandering
to the gun-control crowd and I wish she'd just drop it altogether. That said:

Donald Trump wants those too. Did you forget the whole "there oughta be a list like the no fly list" bit?

I've not seen in my lifetime a politician who was more openly hostile to the First Amendment's protection of Freedom of the Press. I don't want to go
off on a whole spiel about it, you've heard all the things he's personally done. You've heard/read the whole "open up libel laws" quote I'm sure
dozens of times by now. How about Freedom of Religion? Trump has said he wants to target Muslims for surveillance (and "all kinds of programs"),
target "certain" Muslim places of worship for infiltration, ban all Muslims from entering the country until some indeterminate point in the future.

Speaking of surveillance, he's completely in favor of mass surveillance and has indicated in more than one quote like the "we should have all kinds of
programs" (or was it "sorts" I'm too lazy to look it up right now) comment that his interests like in expanding the surviellance. Do you know who
Peter Thiel is? Aside from a very big donor, supporter, advisor, etc to Trump (and having his lawyers send Gawker a C&D over a story about Trump's
Hair — true story), Peter Thiel is the co-founder and chairman of Palantir.

Do you know who Palantir is?

Palantir Technologies, Inc. is a private American software and services company, specializing in big data analysis. Founded in 2004, Palantir's
original clients were federal agencies of the United States Intelligence Community (USIC). It has since expanded its customer base to serve state and
local governments, as well as private companies in the financial and healthcare industries.[2] The company is known for two software projects in
particular: Palantir Gotham is used by counter-terrorism analysts at offices in the USIC and United States Department of Defense, fraud investigators
at the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, and cyber analysts at Information Warfare Monitor (responsible for the GhostNet and the Shadow
Network investigations). Palantir Metropolis is used by hedge funds, banks, and financial services firms.[3][4]

As bad as Hillary's record (and in fact, everyone pretty much except Bernie who was a candidate this election) on mass surveillance, Trump trumps her
by a bit — and that's saying something.

Now he's come out in favor of expanding the horrendous program Stop-and-Frisk which has been implicated in hundreds of thousands of instances where
people's Fourth Amendment rights were utterly disregarded. He called it what? A tremendous success or some such nonsense?

This guy couldn't throw up more red flags if he "hired" a bunch of illegal Polish laborers to do it for him and didn't pay them.

The honest answer is both sides will use the Constitution when it suits them, and work around it when it doesn't. That has been US Politics since 1972
at least, and a good argument could be made for 1962. Trump, in my opinion only, is the lesser of two evils. Hilary is more openly hostile to the
spirit of the Constitution and with Huma's (Abedin, her Chief of Staff and likely next SecState) family ties and published articles in support of
Sharia Law, the far less appealing candidate. Chose your poison wisely.

It's not "Unconstitutional." A sole federal judge ruled it was in 2013, but the SCOTUS ruled the practice is Constitutional and legal this summer.www.rt.com...
Supremes Trump federal judges in matters of Constitutionality, making the entire premise of your thread a fail.

Meh. To be honest, the existence of the law is immaterial. If the police want to check you out, they can do so and make up a rationale afterward.
"He was acting suspiscious" case closed" EXCEPT in regards to civil suits for discrimination cases brought by people stopped. Guess what? You and I
pay those civil awards, so yeah... I have no beef with any law that limits taxpayer exposure to frivolous lawsuits.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.